Are you an "Inclusivist" or "Exclusivist" in your view of WC?

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I think I am mostly inclusive. I mostly relate better to wing chun that I see that has good forward pressure etc for building force awareness and stuff. But at times I will look at clips of people who do not seem to utilise this but obviously have some good technical skill. At those times, I think it would be good to learn a little of what they know. There are also people who are really good at putting things in a fighting context and those people would also be good to learn from.

 

[LFJ]

Call me crazy (or psychic)...but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some folks get upset when some practitioners of a particular lineage (guess who ) incessantly state that others' WC is:
- wrong
- inefficient
- incorrect
- not VT thinking
- fill in the rest with other elitist language...

That's nothing to get upset about, especially if it isn't true!

Rather than cry about it and take things personally, people should defend their methods with logical arguments. Explain exactly how those critiques are invalid or misplaced.

If they can't do that, either the critiques are indeed valid, or they just don't care about the system they train.

Personally, I would love to have things like that pointed out to me so I could consider them and possibly learn something. Or I would explain why they are invalid... but get upset about it? Never. That's a bit too man-child, don't you think?

 

[Marnetmar]

I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle, for the most part. I tend to look at the things other people do and ask myself if it seems like it's practical in a realistic scenario. If it seems practical and fills a hole in my training, I'll adopt it. If it's not, I discard it.

That said, I do have a few very blunt exclusivist opinions, but I tend to keep them to myself so as not to start politics.

 

[mograph]

Rather than cry about it and take things personally, people should defend their methods with logical arguments. Explain exactly how those critiques are invalid or misplaced.

Then first, the initial critiques or claims of fact/value/policy need to be evidence-based, logical arguments.

 

[LFJ]

Then first, the initial critiques or claims of fact/value/policy need to be evidence-based, logical arguments.

I agree.

And if people think they are not, they need to show how they are illogical or not evidence-based.

In any case, don't just cower away and cry about it. That's very unbecoming behavior for an adult martial artists visiting an internet forum.

 

[mograph]

LFJ, we also need to be skeptical of our own biases.

 

[LFJ]

We're in agreement once more, mograph.

WSL once said; "Combat experience is more important than any other thing."

He passed away 19 years ago today, by the way.

R.I.P. WSL.

 

[guy b.]

LFJ, we also need to be skeptical of our own biases.

I agree, never stop testing

 

[geezer]

...Personally, I would love to have things like that pointed out to me so I could consider them and possibly learn something. Or I would explain why they are invalid... but get upset about it?

Honestly, pointing things out in words on a forum is hardly convincing to anybody, least of all people whose minds are made up. The best advice is to point out possible problems with another's approach and suggest some methods of testing the problem.

I believe you or Guy (I forget which) made such a reference over on the WSL and Tan Sau thread, suggesting that charging into a round-punch with tan-da a la David Peterson wouldn't work and could be tested by gearing up and working with some decent, non-compliant punchers. Now that's solid advice. Let people test it themselves. Good ol' scientific method. State problem, propose hypothesis, devise and conduct an experiment to test hypothesis, gather and analyze the data and report conclusion.

Words on a forum, by contrast, convince nobody. And being rude and insulting actually turns people against you. Let's go with persuasion and testing. "Trust but verify".

 

[LFJ]

Honestly, pointing things out in words on a forum is hardly convincing to anybody, least of all people whose minds are made up. The best advice is to point out possible problems with another's approach and suggest some methods of testing the problem.

Well, in some cases it's just that certain tactics or strategies are indirect and inefficient, but not necessarily ineffective.

Degree of directness and efficiency can be logically analyzed by just looking closely at movements.

If one values directness and efficiency, being a VT fighter, they should be able and willing to acknowledge where some movements may be indirect or inefficient.

That's step one. Then they must be willing to seek out a more direct and efficient method if they want to improve their VT.

Otherwise, even if they are shown a more direct and efficient method, they may still believe their method is equally valid and not be willing to change. So, step one is to logically deconstruct their current method.

 

[Phobius]

Well, in some cases it's just that certain tactics or strategies are indirect and inefficient, but not necessarily ineffective.

Degree of directness and efficiency can be logically analyzed by just looking closely at movements.

If one values directness and efficiency, being a VT fighter, they should be able and willing to acknowledge where some movements may be indirect or inefficient.

That's step one. Then they must be willing to seek out a more direct and efficient method if they want to improve their VT.

Otherwise, even if they are shown a more direct and efficient method, they may still believe their method is equally valid and not be willing to change. So, step one is to logically deconstruct their current method.

You believe a method can be analyzed simply by looking at it without a proper description or even feeling it, from for instance YouTube? Ever wondered if such an approach is flawed because such a view would only cause you to compare it towards your current understanding of how it must be?

How can a deconstruct of a method purely from visual input lead you to not question all methods that are not identical to your own? After all if you wouldn't your own approach would be flawed.

My approach is always to see a method, trying to understand what is the reason behind it and the core of the method itself. Deconstruct is what I do but not to question but rather understand. Once I believe I understand I validate my readings and start see if I can pinpoint some flaws. I breach those flaws to the person in question and read his response as I might have to revalidate my understanding of the technique.

Meaning I will not understand a method or technique until after I have had that conversation. Before then all my comments are simply unproven theories because frankly I would have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.

You may be different and can understand everything from first blimp, it just wont work like that for me. And dont get me started on understanding a technique from simple text, or heck even pictures. A picture should say more than a 1000 words, for martial arts it doesnt say crap. A guy should never stand still so why does he on that picture?

 

[LFJ]

"Looking closely" doesn't mean with just one's eyes.

 

[Phobius]

"Looking closely" doesn't mean with just one's eyes.

What else do you have on a forum? A brain yes but as input I mean. Your eyes and fingers. Was about to say neither helps very much but eyes are good for reading.

 

[LFJ]

What else do you have on a forum?

I'm talking about examining what you do in your own training (lines, number of tools, steps, etc.) to determine its degree of directness and efficiency, with written critiques in mind.

 

[geezer]

I'm talking about examining what you do in your own training (lines, number of tools, steps, etc.) to determine its degree of directness and efficiency, with written critiques in mind.

This is good advice, but I'm like Phobius. I can only get so much from a forum, from a picture, or even a video. I learn so much better working with people physically, and then carefully mulling over what we did.

You made a good point earlier contrasting efficiency with effectiveness. One can be a component of the other, but they are separate things.

Martial arts in general demands effectiveness i.e. "getting the job done". WC specifically focuses on efficiency, but efficiency in the martial arts can mean a lot of different things. In a general sense it refers to "getting the job done for the least input" or "the most bang for your buck". But what does that really mean? There is the efficiency of time, of movement, of energy, ...even the efficiency of training methods. Each means something very different. Some are even at odds with each other. And all are part of WC, but the emphasis on each varies between lineages and branches.

This, in itself, might be worth exploring on another thread. It might even help people here understand the perspectives of others better. Worth a try.

 

[guy b.]

Honestly, pointing things out in words on a forum is hardly convincing to anybody, least of all people whose minds are made up. The best advice is to point out possible problems with another's approach and suggest some methods of testing the problem.

I have had some of my best moments of inspiration about bjj through discussion on forums. Why should wing chun be different?

 

[geezer]

I have had some of my best moments of inspiration about bjj through discussion on forums. Why should wing chun be different

Right. It shouldn't be!

...But the way some of these threads have been going, it's not! That is it's not a friendly exchange of ideas anymore ...it's one party who fancies themselves as always right lecturing, even berating and sniping at the others. People respond in kind and next thing you know we've got a forum war going on. Let's not.[/QUOTE]

 

[guy b.]

Right. It shouldn't be!

...But the way some of these threads have been going, it's not! That is it's not a friendly exchange of ideas anymore ...it's one party who fancies themselves as always right lecturing, even berating and sniping at the others. People respond in kind and next thing you know we've got a forum war going on. Let's not.

I don't want any kind of forum war but I don't see it the way you describe. I certainly don't believe I am always right and I think it unlikely that LFJ believes this. The only issue I have on this forum is with people who are not honest in their arguments. This is a small number of people or persons singular. Address that and you may solve any forum issues that you see arising.

 

[geezer]

No, it really isn't up to me to fix things, it has to be a collective effort. And frankly, I haven't met anybody currently on this forum who showed reason to be called "dishonest", a "coward", or a "lying parasite" ...as one member has been. Actually, I think I was included in that "dishonest" thing, but I'm used to abuse. I teach high school for a living.

Regardless, the point is that we need to drop the abusive epithets, and if necessary, just ignore forum members who we can't agree with and get on with meaningful discussions. If you can't do that, you may find that your welcome here has run out. I'm just passing along a polite suggestion based on things I hear. And, for the record, I'm being honest!

 

[guy b.]

I haven't met anybody currently on this forum who showed reason to be called "dishonest", a "coward", or a "lying parasite"

Please honestly and without bias check posts by that member again. Assembling what has been said in terms of a coherent response on the forum seems beyond that person. It is difficult to come up with a reason for this beyond intentional misrepresentation, which is indeed a form of dishonestly. But then maybe he has dementia, or is mentally ill, or is depressed? I just don't know. Whatever the reason, I feel you should address it publicly, as you feel the need to address the issue of what you find to be insulting language publicly. This would be a fair way to deal with any perceived problems for both parties in this particular disagreement. Lying is after all more an issue of trolling than any angry response because it is an attempt to intentionally stoke disagreement.

Alternatively you could stop trying to be the self appointed forum police and just allow arguments to play out since we are all adults and words don't actually hurt anyone. I don't mind arguing with (PC edit; apparently dishonest people who may in fact have an honest excuse for their apparent behaviour). You could in fact just leave me to it.